This report is based on research conducted by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA 290 2007 10064 1). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its content, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The information in this report is intended to help clinicians, employers, policymakers, and others make informed decisions about the provision of health care services. This report is intended as a reference and not as a substitute for clinical judgment. This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for the development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 184 Treatment of Common Hip Fractures Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 www.ahrq.gov Contract No. HHSA 290 2007 10064 1 Prepared by: Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota Investigators Mary Butler, Ph.D., M.B.A. Mary Forte, D.C. Robert L. Kane, M.D. Siddharth Joglekar, M.D. Susan J. Duval, Ph.D. Marc Swiontkowski, M.D. Timothy Wilt, M.D., M.P.H. AHRQ Publication No. 09-E013 August 2009 This document is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials noted for which further reproduction is prohibited without the specific permission of copyright holders. Suggested Citation: Butler M, Forte M, Kane RL, Joglekar S, Duval SJ, Swiontkowski M., Wilt T. Treatment of Common Hip Fractures. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 184 (Prepared by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. HHSA 290 2007 10064 1.) AHRQ Publication No. 09-E013. Rockville, MD. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. August 2009. No investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement (e.g., employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties) that conflict with material presented in this report. ii Preface The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Evidence-Based Practice Centers (EPCs), sponsors the development of evidence reports and technology assessments to assist public- and private-sector organizations in their efforts to improve the quality of health care in the United States. This report was requested and funded by AHRQ. The reports and assessments provide organizations with comprehensive, science-based information on common, costly medical conditions, and new health care technologies. The EPCs systematically review the relevant scientific literature on topics assigned to them by AHRQ and conduct additional analyses when appropriate prior to developing their reports and assessments. To bring the broadest range of experts into the development of evidence reports and health technology assessments, AHRQ encourages the EPCs to form partnerships and enter into collaborations with other medical and research organizations. The EPCs work with these partner organizations to ensure that the evidence reports and technology assessments they produce will become building blocks for health care quality improvement projects throughout the Nation. The reports undergo peer review prior to their release. AHRQ expects that the EPC evidence reports and technology assessments will inform individual health plans, providers, and purchasers as well as the health care system as a whole by providing important information to help improve health care quality. We welcome written comments on this evidence report. They may be sent to the Task Order Officer named below at: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850, or by email to [email protected]. Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D. Jean Slutsky, P.A., M.S.P.H., Director Director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Center for Outcomes and Evidence, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Charles M. Turkelson, Ph.D. Director, Research and Scientific Affairs Beth A. Collins Sharp, R.N., Ph.D. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Director, EPC Program Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Karen Lohman Siegel, P.T., M.A. EPC Program Task Order Officer Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality iii Acknowledgments We would like to thank Nancy Russell, Rebecca Schultz, and Karen Rashke for their help with editing and formatting this report, and especially Marilyn Eells for her editing, formatting, organizational skills, and her professionalism. We also thank all the individuals at AHRQ, the Scientific Resource Center, and the peer reviewers for their comments and suggestions. iv Structured Abstract Objectives: To conduct a systematic review and synthesize the evidence for the effects of surgical treatments for subcapital and intertrochanteric/subtrochanteric hip fractures on patient- focused outcomes for elderly patients. Data Sources: MEDLINE®, Cochrane databases, Scirus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, and expert consultants. We also manually searched reference lists from relevant systematic reviews. Review Methods: High quality quasi-experimental design studies were used to examine relationships between patient characteristics, type of fracture, and patient outcomes. Randomized controlled trials were used to examine relationships between type of surgical treatment and patient outcomes. Patient mortality was examined with Forest plots. Narrative analysis was used for pain, quality of life (QoL), and functional outcomes due to inconsistently measured and reported outcomes. Results: Mortality does not appear to differ by device class, or by devices within a class. Nor, on the whole, do pain, functioning, and QoL. Some internal fixation devices may confer earlier return to functioning over others for some patients, but such gains are very short lived. Very limited results suggest that subcapital hip fracture patients with total hip replacements have improved patient outcomes over internal fixation, but it is unclear whether these results would continue to hold if the analyses included the full complement of relevant covariates. Age, gender, prefracture functioning, and cognitive impairment appear to be related to mortality and functional outcomes. Fracture type does not appear to be independently related to patient outcomes. Again, however, the observational literature does not include the full complement of potential covariates and it is uncertain if these results would hold. Conclusions: Several factors limit our ability to definitively answer the key questions posed in this study using the existing literature. Limited perspectives lead to incomplete sets of independent variables included in analyses. Specific populations are poorly defined and separated for comparative study. Fractures with widely varying biomechanical problems are often lumped together. Outcome variables are inconsistently measured and reported, making it very difficult to aggregate or even compare results. If future high quality trials continue to support the evidence that differences in devices are short term at best, within the first few weeks to few months of recovery, policy implications involve establishing the value of a shorter recovery relative to the cost of the new device. As the literature generally focuses on community dwelling elderly patients, more attention needs to be directed toward understanding implications of surgical treatment choices for the nursing home population. v Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1 Evidence Report..............................................................................................................................11 Chapter 1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................13 Overview ....................................................................................................................................13 Types of Hip Fractures ...............................................................................................................14 Surgical Treatment of Hip Fractures ..........................................................................................16 Femoral Neck Fractures .......................................................................................................16 Pertrochanteric Fractures......................................................................................................19 Key Questions.............................................................................................................................21 Conceptual Model.......................................................................................................................22 Scope of the Review ...................................................................................................................25 Chapter 2. Methods...........................................................................................................................27